"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

At the BUILD developer conference in April 2014, Microsoft will discuss its vision for the future of Windows, including a year-off release codenamed "Threshold" that will most likely be called Windows 9. Here's what I know about the next major release of Windows.

As a kind of recap, we know that Microsoft will update Windows 8.1 in 2014, first with a service pack/feature pack-type update called Update 1 (or GDR1 internally). I wrote a bit about this update recently in Windows 8.1 Update 1 (Very Early) Preview but the expectation is that it will ship in April 2014 alongside Windows Phone 8.1, the development of which Microsoft will soon complete.

Also in April, of course, is BUILD 2014. That show will hit just weeks after Microsoft completes its corporate reorganization and will surprisingly be very much focused on Windows Phone and Xbox, according to my sources. But I think Windows watchers will agree that the biggest news from the show will be an announcement about Microsoft's plans for the next major Windows version, codenamed "Threshold."

But Threshold is more important than any specific updates. Windows 8 is tanking harder than Microsoft is comfortable discussing in public, and the latest release, Windows 8.1, which is a substantial and free upgrade with major improvements over the original release, is in use on less than 25 million PCs at the moment. That's a disaster, and Threshold needs to strike a better balance between meeting the needs of over a billion traditional PC users while enticing users to adopt this new Windows on new types of personal computing devices. In short, it needs to be everything that Windows 8 is not.

Here's what I've learned about Threshold.

Windows 9. To distance itself from the Windows 8 debacle, Microsoft is currently planning to drop the Windows 8 name and brand this next release as Windows 9. That could change, but that's the current thinking.

BUILD vision announcement. In case it's not obvious that the Sinofsky era is over, Microsoft will use BUILD to provide its first major "vision" announcement for Windows since, yes, Longhorn in 2003. Don't expect anything that grandiose, but the Windows team believes it needs to hit a happy middle ground between the KGB-style secrecy of the Sinofsky camp and the freewheeling "we can do it all" days that preceded that. As important, the firm understands that customers need something to be excited about.

No bits at BUILD. Microsoft will not be providing developers with an early alpha release of "Threshold" at BUILD, and for a good reason: The product won't even begin development until later that month. Right now, Microsoft is firming up which features it intends to deliver in this release.

Metro 2.0. Maturing and fixing the "Metro" design language used by Windows will be a major focus area of Threshold. It's not clear what changes are coming, but it's safe to assume that a windowed mode that works on the desktop is part of that.

Three milestones. Microsoft expects to deliver three milestone releases of "Threshold" before its final release. It's unclear what these releases will be called (Beta, Release Candidate, etc.) or which if any will be provided to the public.

April 2015 release. Microsoft is currently targeting April 2015 for the release of Windows 9 "Threshold."

In some ways, the most interesting thing about Threshold is how it recasts Windows 8 as the next Vista. It's an acknowledgment that what came before didn't work, and didn't resonate with customers. And though Microsoft will always be able to claim that Windows 9 wouldn't have been possible without the important foundational work they had done first with Windows 8—just as was the case with Windows 7 and Windows Vista—there's no way to sugarcoat this. Windows 8 has set back Microsoft, and Windows, by years, and possibly for good.

These things don't happen in isolation—the big and slow Vista arrived inauspiciously just as netbooks were taking off and Windows 8 arrived just as media tablets changed everything—and it's fair to say that the technology world of today barely resembles that of 2006, creating new challenges for Windows. Threshold will target this new world. It could very well be a make or break release.

What makes me sad is, in spite of all the really good things it sounds like W9 will fix - more unified development across the whole ecosystem, metro windows (turning it into being able to do mobile on a PC instead of trying to dumb down the PC by forcing it into mobile), etc. - probably the smartest move is calling it Windows 9.

It scares me how much hype and hyperbole rules all in this day and age, but in a world where someone's tweet becomes the next internet tech news cycle... The one, WRONG, mantra I've heard preached over and over and over by "idiots in the know" is that Microsoft only gets it right every other release.

That said, if Microsoft did nothing else but recompile and rerelease Windows 8 by cut and pasting all instances of 8 and replacing with 9, they'd probably see a huge groundswell of support.

No, I don't think it's as easy as copy/paste 8/9, but you're not far off. People are hugely influenced over the wrong people and things.

Read it on a magazine website from someone who doesn't know tech from a hole in the ground? Must be true.

Heard it from your IT guy who keeps your entire business running 24/7 without a single virus infection for 3 years and only an hour of scheduled downtime per month? Pssh, what does he know? And that guy who runs a site called SuperSite for Windows? Clearly he must be an idiot fanboy.

It's ludicrous.

People have no interest in learning Windows 8's new UI changes, but they'll pick up literally ANY non-MS device and learn an entirely new user paradigm no questions asked. Why? Because a sales guy or social acquaintance said it was great.

I use Windows 8.1, Windows RT, and just got a Windows Phone (not planned as I had no problems with my iPhone but I like it). However, I am amazed that my friends, family, work associates, and casual acquaintances think Windows 8 is total crap with a hard-to-use confusing interface and many limitations. However, they all seem to have problems with their new Mac, iOS devices, Android device. They need to ask someone, go online, or take a training class. But somehow no one can do the same for MS products. Seems like MS has really lots the hearts and minds of the digital elite (journalists, bloggers) and the public.

I gave my dad a iPad a few years ago. And he said "it was very confusing at first." I just have him a Venue 8 Pro and he said the same thing. In both cases once he learned the key procedures he was fine.

Windows has not been the leader for many years. Chromebooks are not the reason for Windows failure. MS lost their leadership positions years ago to tablets and smartphones which have improved so fast while MS is still living in Enterprise-time. Also I would say that complexity and associated quality issues have also sunk MS.

One example of not being the hearts and minds leader. I have heard the folks at the TWIT.tv network exclaim "How do you turn off a Windows 8 PC" "It takes too many steps" Or how to do task X, I can't figure it out." Many of these statements has shown me that only a few of those folks actually have tried to used Windows 8. And I like TWIT.tv netcasts.

"Seems like MS has really lots the hearts and minds of the digital elite (journalists, bloggers) and the public."

This is a huge problem, and it goes beyond coverage of MS. Most journalists (and most members of the professional/"creative" class) have an affective personal preference for Apple. It distorts the entire field of technology journalism.

"MS lost their leadership positions years ago to tablets and smartphones which have improved so fast while MS is still living in Enterprise-time."

This is another tough one, and I'm not sure how MS works around it while remaining committed to "One Windows". Consumer products need to iterate rapidly, but enterprises are just never ever going to be onboard with MS's current breakneck pace of change. Large enterprises don't exist to constantly upgrade their employee's workstations, and developers aren't in the business of learning an entirely new platform/API every year.

What you are missing in your understanding of Windows is that since Windows 95 the Start Button/Menu what the best place to "start" when you powered on your computer for the first time. Start, a simple word and simple UI for M$ fans from W95 to W7.

Would you expect Ford or Chevrolet to suddenly decide to put a steering wheel on the right side of an American car? Of course not.

A personal computer is fast to access with a Start Button either by a click or by pressing the Windows logo key.

For PC users, M$ made a foolish mistake thinking a hybrid OS for all Windows users was a risk worth taking. It's beyond ludicrous because you simply don't mess with the everyday Window user's UI or professionals who can sit down and do things "easily" with M$'s hallmark Start Button.

The mantra around the world is "give us back our Start Button/Start Menu as we have known it since Windows 95".

To repeat: Learning Windows was easy because of that Start Button/Menu. IT professionals who are in bed with Microsoft will tout the hybrid as "useful" and "sensible". NOT those who are independent of receiving any monies from the mega-corporation for favorable reviews.

You're right. And that said, maybe MS's biggest Windows 8 mistake was a lack of proper marketing. MS needed to do something to make the new Windows 8 UI intriguing if not sexy before introducing so much change.

"People have no interest in learning Windows 8's new UI changes, but they'll pick up literally ANY non-MS device and learn an entirely new user paradigm no questions asked."

Very salient point. Why do you think that is? Although social influence is a factor, I don't think that's it.

There probably is no single reason, but I'd argue that much of it boils down to this: who is Windows 8 for, Microsoft of its customers?

Even though I don't dislike Windows 8, it very much feels like a release designed to get Microsoft into the tablet vs. a release designed to solve any new customer "problems." The whole "one experience across all your devices" angle seems contrived: people already decided that they are fine with different experiences across different devices. And they've also decided that the mobile experience they want is not one based on Windows.

Why? Well, for starters, MSFT was late and didn't have a viable mobile offering. If people wanted what the iPhone and Android phones offered, they'd have to learn a new experience, albeit a relatively intuitive one. And that's what people did. They learned the experience and got comfortable with it; the fact that it was different than the experience on their PC or Mac was not a barrier. So here comes Microsoft trying to solve a problem that no one cares about.

But don't people wish they could use a single device for work and for play? Perhaps, but it's not a deal-breaker. The challenge with these hybrid devices is that they're jacks-of-all-trades, masters of nothing. In tryign to meet multiple needs, compromises have to be made (and I say this as a happy Surface user). If you have to attach a keyboard, connect a mouse, add a stand and second monitor to make a tablet useful for work, why not just get an ultrabook? I think we will reach a point where we need fewer devices, but to me, this is more of an app problem. Once productivity and line-of-business apps are written with a "mobile first" mentality, the need for PCs will further decline.

But, some work just might be better or more easily done using the traditional desktop paradigm. And for this, Windows 7 was perfectly fine--maybe even too good, which partly explains the apathy around new versions of Windows. What is Windows 8 giving me that makes doing work easier, better, etc.? The ability to run less-than-capable Metro apps that force me away from the desktop? Not very compelling.

Sure, Windows can still be actively developed and improved, but the traditional desktop experience has pretty much reached a ceiling. Innovating this experience likely will take you to a different paradigm altogether. Apple's already realized this; while it's still developing Mac OS, the majority of its focus is on iOS, its "post-PC" offering.

Microsoft refuses to leave the consumer market, yet consisently finds itself late to the party and playing catchup. While I wish the company would regain a little bit of its competitive--even cutthroat--fire, it has to accept that Apple and Google are not going away. Instead, MSFT needs to define its identity in this new world, which, to me, should be about become the premier productivity and entertainment software developer for all devices. The company already seems to be doing this with offerings like Office and XBox Music for iOS and Android, but I'd really like to see it go full-steam ahead here. Sure, keep developing Windows, particularly on the server side, but in terms of a vision, forget about Windows. Let it go. I think it unshackling itself from its Windows chains would free the company to do some really innovative things. Imagine if its next Surface ran--gasp!--Android instead of Windows and aimed to bridge the productivity gap on those devices? OEMs already are releasing PCs based on Android. I bet MSFT could do it better.

I'd argue that in the case of Windows 8 (and somewhat 8.1), it's the product that's being rejected, not necessarily (or only) the marketing.

As such, this current product is beyond saving in the public eye, regardless of name.

On Threshold:

I'm not quite sure how to square the very limited development time frame - maybe 8-9 months plus bugfixes - with the notion of both fixing 8/8.1 and showing meaningful progress towards a grand new vision.

But if Microsoft pulls this off, they might have only lost 2 1/2 years, and they might still have lost the war.

"The one, WRONG, mantra I've heard preached over and over and over by "idiots in the know" is that Microsoft only gets it right every other release." To be fair you can almost perceive a certain bad / not as bad cycle to MSFT product releases so I wouldn't say the "idiots" are totally WRONG in yhay mantra.

This is a rather interesting comment and I think it's somewhat telling. You say that your friends didn't 'get' the tiles. Yet what's the difference between a tile and an icon? Both are square, sometimes rectangular areas with a picture. When you touch them, something happens. The difference is that a tile may actually have some info in it too.

Your second statement shows the real issue. They didn't know how to find the desktop - which implies that they expected there to be a desktop. Pick up any other device that doesn't have the word 'Windows' associated with it and that expectation is not there. iPads don't really work much differently, but people will pick those up and learn.

I won't deny that Windows 8 was rough around the edges when it was first released or that it has some things that could still be improved. However, I think that most of the issue centers around people's expectations rather than actual system issues.

JohnnyG321, Those expectations are reasonable. It is an operating system called Windows. There is a certain expectation that 18 years of experience has given us for Windows. Also there is NO advantage, other then touch to using the Metro interface. I sacrifice resizable multiple windows, a taskbar, a compact startmenu, ease of closing programs, ease of switching directly to other programs. And frankly Windows 8 Metro interface is not as well done as an Android. There are simply many areas of the metro desktop that you must simply KNOW about in order to use them. The charms bar, How to swipe down an app to close it and so on. My Android has visual clues for almost all of it's functions. Metro doesn't. It is a bad design even as a tablet.

What is interesting is that so many are in complete and obvious denial on Windows 8's shortcomings and unusability. I cannot word it better than Bill Boyko in his video: "Windows 8 - An animated evaluation"

I don't believe you. Otherwise, your friends are obviously technology challenged. They couldn't find the DESKTOP? Mind you, there's a big wide tile that has "Desktop" written in it and with MS's default color scheme if you look at the screen for 15 seconds it's impossible to NOT find the desktop tile. You read Desktop, you click Desktop, you found the desktop!

Seems to me your argument is invalid, or a blatant lie with trolling purposes. If there's so many "real problems with Windows 8" don't hide after that generic blanket statement. Go ahead, specify what those problems are and why they affect you and your friends so much. I'll be waiting.

Even though ..., it very much feels like a release designed to get Microsoft into the tablet vs. a release designed to solve any new customer "problems." The whole "one experience across all your devices" angle seems contrived: people already decided that they are fine with different experiences across different devices. And they've also decided that the mobile experience they want is not one based on Windows."

I pick up my iPod, I do touch, swipe, etc. But I don't expect it to be everything for me. I don't want it to be. Likewise, I don't expect to pick up my desktop PC and carry it to the living room. They have different purposes and I'm comfortable--even happy--with that.

I never log into sites that I consider critical to my life on my iPod. I never do banking or financial transactions (including things like eBay purchases) on my iPod. I can comfortably lock down my PC and Firefox where I have a reasonable degree of security for my threat model.

Then the other big problem is what has Windows 8 (or even Windows 7) added to my life? There were problems with Windows XP (and previous OSes). However, the only driving factor for me to upgrade was the fact that applications which I really want to use, are no longer supported on Windows XP. My wife can't do Quicken, et al on Windows XP. (And I can't print from Quicken 2001 on our Windows 7 PC either--the door swings both ways.) Hence, the largest benefit for Windows 7 was driving sales for Microsoft and the PC vendor I chose.

I am very concerned that MS will do a knee-jerk reaction, taking things backward instead of forward, just as people warm up to Windows 8/8.1 and start liking it. The worst part is they are running around 'fixing' things instead of focusing everything into really innovating and pushing forward.

I cannot see how Microsoft can "turn Windows around" in a development of less than one year. I don't think they understand what the consumer wants, or the way ahead. They need to ensure their cloud based services offer real value to the consumer. They understand the Enterprise Cloud needs, but are a long way off understanding and marketing any consumer services. Xbox services really only work in the US, which is simply not good enough if Microsoft expects to be a global brand.

They also need to get OEMs back on board by giving Consumer Windows licences for Free, and by making sure Touch based MS Office works and compelling. So Gemini had really deliver for the Enterprise.

I'm always amused by the idea of giving away Windows. You know, making sure they give away one of the pillars of revenue that they have. That would work spectacularly if your goal is to make Microsoft less profitable.

Do people even know what they want? I mean, I've heard from multiple people who want another Windows 7 OS just with newer stuff. I've also spoken to people who actually enjoy the Windows 8 Metro UI.

Microsoft is never gonna make people happy. They'll probably add a start menu, and make it so Metro apps can be ran like any other application and make a lot of people happy, but will probably upset others. Their damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Personally, I think it's quite easy for Microsoft to "right" the Windows 8 "wrong". I think the biggest thing Microsoft did wrong (and right, honestly) was launch a platform (Windows 8) and force the Modern UI across all device types. It was wrong because desktop users don't use it much (or at all). And it was right because it was a necessary evil: get the Modern UI out there, give developers incentives to develop for it (see: 90% of the PC market).

Of course, the underlying problem that people have with Windows 8 is the following: those that are expecting the typical Windows experience didn't get it. Nor were they taught it well. Windows 8 failed to give users tutorials on how to use the new Windows. And it was rushed to market.

Windows 8.1 remedied a lot, but still: no start menu for those that desperately wanted it back.

Windows 9 is probably coming out as a way to finally divvy up the Windows platforms meaningfully:

Windows 9
Modern 9
Windows Phone 9
Xbox 9

Now, I'm not so sure on the Xbox bit, but I think what's going to end up happening is the following:

Windows 9 will ultimately be a hybrid OS in the sense that if you're using a touch or gesture based OS and want the Modern UI first and foremost, you can enable it or disable it from the factory. Or you can do such from the settings. I think Windows 9 will end up focusing on the desktop to win the enterprise business. And it makes perfect sense. XP will be dead, Windows 7 will be adopted by some, Windows 8 will be skipped by some, and Windows 9 will be adopted by some.

Modern 9...I don't know what the name will be, but I think Microsoft is going to distance Windows and Modern once Office for the Modern UI is out. This means for touch/gesture first devices (Surface, for example), it'll be just the Modern UI with the desktop disabled (but can be enabled if you'd like) by default.

Windows Phone 9...I think Modern 9 and Windows Phone 9 will be merged by this point. Apps on Windows Phone 9 will run on Modern 9 in much the same way as iPhone apps run on iPad. But it'll be cleaner, because of the Modern UI paradigm. And without the desktop, I think Microsoft can do a much better job at streamlining Modern 9 and Windows Phone 9.

Xbox One 9...Xbox One is based on Windows 8. It shares a lot of the same paradigms and UI...but I fully expect by next year they'll not only have indie developers making games...but apps will make their way to the platform.

Can this be done in a year? Of course it can. A lot of this is common sense.

OEM's? You mean the comedians who continue to infect almost every retail PC, laptop and tablet with mountains of crapware and who, for the longest time, produced cheap, heavy, slow, hot PC's and laptops. Those same OEM's who have started producing devices running Linux, Android, buying OS' to 'compete' with Windows (cough -Palm/WebOS - cough)?

With friends like them, who needs enemies.

I feel that the OEM space needs some consolidation and rationalization and I feel Microsoft should do all that it can to continue to provide the north star, setting the example for what well designed hardware can and should look like.

Sure, Microsoft has much to do in order to improve its consumer marketing, but I feel they are far better poised to do so now than at any time in the past.

speaking of now Windows/Android OEM's who don't know how to do it right, saw one of those 22" HP all in one android tablet/tabletop systems at Harvey norman right now, thing is, they put a bezel on it that's large enough and thick enough that it's actually very difficult to do the simple swipe touch gesture one would normally use for an Android device for opening the notification centre, it's no wonder they don't get anything right on Windows Devices either.

The idea of giving away licenses at this point to all OEMs is silly. Windows Core, without the Desktop, should be a freely licensed version for OEMs, but Pro should continue to have a licensing fee attached. The OEMs aren't leaving en masse, they're just trying different things. Giving away Windows Core for tablets can combat Android, especially with MS offering protection against patent litigation. Expect those lawsuits to expand as the car companies start loading Android. I still maintain that Android will be dead sooner than most think because of a patent meltdown. Google will stop supporting it. Why do you think they've developed the Chromebook and didn't move to further developing Android as a proper Desktop system? They know how much intellectual property has been stolen.

It's telling that we didn't see a ton of WinDroid PCs at CES. Early reports made it sound like most PC manufacturers would be making some WinDroid machines, but I only really saw ASUS doing it. Samsung's ATIV Book Q had yet to hit the market and probably won't ever.

I also think MS is perfectly capable of meeting the Threshold dates and has done pretty well with their rapid release cycle. 8.1 came fairly quickly and was an intermediate step. One of MS' biggest advantages is that they still have the best software engineers in the business - and some great UI designers too. Everyone is following them on the Flat UI design and I bet they wish they could follow them on the Live Tiles, but the patent infringement would be huge if they did.

I expect Windows is far from dead. I'll be interested to see the tablet mix from the past quarter, but I'd guess that Windows tabs MAY have passed the iPad in marketshare. While the smartphone market is a harder nut to crack, I think Windows can pass Android in the tablet space.

It hard to read articles like this and take them seriously. The only OS that sells better than Windows 8/8.1 is Windows 7.. and that mostly on the uptake of businesses converting from windows xp 13 years after its release.

Windows Vista was a MARKETING DISASTER not a disaster. Windows vista was windows 6.0. If we follow the actual technical documentation of MS OSes, Windows 7.0 does even exist. Windows "7" was actually windows 6.1, Windows "8" is actually windows 6.2 and windows 8.1 is actually windows 6.3. i say that to say that Vista was the foundation of everything afterward.

MS makes plenty of marketing and brand mistakes in the consumer market since the arrival of of the Sony, Apple and Google triumvirate and their marketing dollars, but that doesn't mean the tech is bad.

Especially among the digerati and bloggers who espouse cut their web 2.0 teeth on cheap mobile devices and experiences which were very limited in 2007-8 timeframe. Its very difficult to combat the "sentiment" that what apple and google do are "right" and what MS does is "wrong" no matter how good it is.

Even for bloggers who support MS' products more often than not they spend a lot of time either with, explaining away or kowtowing the non-MS set who somehow believe that their solution is more elegant, desirable or powerful.

Android will outsell Windows this year by a factor of at least 3.5 to 1, and that's just this year. As for Apple's iOS, I'd have to look it up, I guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to Windows or more than Windows, from a sales perspective.

Microsoft's problem is that this is 2.5 years after Windows 8. That's 2.5 years of attention when the world is going ever more in other directions. The time they've spent on this debacle could have better been spent working on something customers liked.

It's good that Ballmer, no matter how well intentioned he was, is leaving. Microsoft has rarely been an innovative company, but alienating their base is another thing that's just stupid. Let's hope the new CEO has enough wisdom and independence to make major changes, for if he/she does not, I suspect Microsoft will be like IBM - drifting from market lead into still successful, but cash-cow corporate relevance and not consumer relevance any longer.

Am I the only one that thinks Windows 8.1 is good? What with all the hatred? The only bad thing about windows 8 is the perception. People are clinging to other peoples opinions like they did with Vista. In a day in age where there's just way too many fanboys and social networks to be heard. Now that there are 3 major ecosystems (Microsoft,Appls,Google). There's more places to turn to if you don't like the product and more people who are on bandwagons on the other camps. Windows 8 needed to happen this way. Microsoft needed to shove metro down peoples throats to see it and force them to use it. People needed to get exposed. Its a big and important change and it has to happen. It may harm them now but its an important for them in the future. Sure some things could if been done better. Like more touch screen devices at the release of windows 8. IMHO that is was the biggest setback. People cannot use metro with a track pad. I've seen people first hand who purchased a touch screen device and loved it. People will learn to live it with the right device. Its the most versatile OS on the world. Metro is the most versatile, functional and beautiful touch screen OS out there by far. People will come around. Sure some people will be put off. Alot of people. But this needs to happen people! "With any great change there is great resistance"

I partly agree with you, not about the part that thinks it's good though. It's not really very good, because it's too jarring. It needs to be remembered that most of the world isn't technical in any way whatsoever. They don't even know what model computer they own, and many can't remember the manufacturer when asked.

It took Microsoft some while, but when they realized their problems with mobile, which was rapidly growing, while desktops were slowing, and that was before the GREAT SHRINKAGE we're seeing the past couple of years, they knew they needed to do something to grow their almost non existant share in smartphones, and their total non existant share in tablets, and they had to do it FAST.

I've been saying this for some while. Their quick solution was Win 8. But before that was Win Phone 7+. We could look at that as a test bed for Metro, now known as the Modern UI. Microsoft had every reason to think people would love Metro because it was used first, in a simpler form on their amazingly popular Zune HD. Um, well, perhaps not so popular, uh, actually a total failure. So, of course people would love it.

But that was rushed out too, based on the old Win Mobile CE.

Win 8 is a mess. It's a mess because it takes years to come up with a new OS, or a major revamp of an older on, if it's even possible. To that, we can look to Longhorn, an attempt to make a majorly improved OS while keeping backwards compatibility, it failed. Microsoft should have learned the lesson from Apple, whose earlier attempt to do the same thing with Copeland, in the late 1990’s, also failed.

But Apple bought neXt, and its modern OS, while Microsoft had nowhere to go. But even with a working OS, it took Apple years to get it "right". Microsoft attempted to do Win 8 in a couple of years, less, really. So instead of a really new OS, or version, the bolted a mobile OS onto their desktop version, and threw it out there.

Is it a wonder people can't stand it?

But, they had no choice, they feel, because if they didn't get something for mobile out quick, the window, so to speak would close on them. I think this was intended as Win Phone 7+ was intended, as a placeholder, until their more integrated version could be finished. At least, for their sake, I hope so.

The problem is that, as people didn't like the Zune HD, they don't like this either. Unlike with the Zune HD, most people already have Windows machines, and so a number will buy into this as well, like it or not. So there is a market for it, though not an enthusiastic one. Some people bought Vista as well, remember.

At any rate, Microsoft has said that the Modern UI was the future Windows, and that the classic desktop would go away. If they're backing off on that somewhat now, it doesn't bode well for the future they want. Their phones still are selling very poorly, a marketshare in the US of 3.1% latest numbers, and about 3.5% worldwide.wne tablets are even worse off, with no evidence that surface! either RT or Pro are getting any real sales, and third party tablets aren't doing well either.

Windows 9, when it comes out, had better be a revelation. If not, Microsoft will be in a long decline they won't be able to move out if, because it will be too late.

I couldn't agree more. What a lot of fuss about Win 8 and Win 8.1. I use it on a Surface RT and on a desktop as well as a touch screen computer. No probs as far as I'm concerned. Wingers should pipe down and get real.

I don't mind it on the desktop, and like it on the surface RT - but I'm not the typical user, and at a guess, neither are you. I'm used to jumping between interfaces, so when I want to do something I know where to start looking and what sort of thing I'm looking for. Many users don't, though - so when they want to do something, they'll try to remember the exact series of actions someone showed them the last time, or at least don't diverge too much from familiar territory. (I know people that get rather confused if their desktop icons move.)

The changes from 7 to 8 are mostly a case of adding new things that look completely different, or replacing existing things with new versions that look completely different. With the above in mind, it shouldn't be surprising that many users have a negative first impression, more so the less interested they are in OSes and GUIs.

I just upgraded from 8 to 8.1 and have no problems with it. The only thing that was annoying was the blasted charm bar in 8 due to the upper right corner being a "hot corner" and the annoyance was when trying to close an app or when hitting the far right side of the ribbon in Word, Excel, OneNote and Word Pad. Changes in 8.1 solved that by giving changing the Hot Corner for the "Charm Bar" to the bottom right (by the clock/system tray) and the new start button is more useful then in Win7.

The funny thing is, that Win8.1 with the start button is what 8 should have been. MS really goofed with the lack of Tutorials and such teaching folks how to power off the computer along with switching users (many families use the fast user switching - even I do on the systems at the house I manage) and it's not intuitive how to do it with Win8. Other things like where are the PC settings that were in the control panel? Although some of the changes are useful from a touch centric, there were too many changes away from the long standing desktop that people were used to. Heck, everything should be accessible through the control panel but no, MS thought the PC Settings in the "Charm Bar" made more sense and people don't like that. Even I had problems with the change to Win7 when I discovered the Win-U combo no longer brought up the "shutdown menu". Instead it activates the Accessibility menu and that combo had been shutdown for 15 years (Win95). Who's Idea was that? Warts and all though, I'm happy with Win8 as the transition hasn't been as bad as the change from DOS to WFW 3.11/Win9x/XP.

"MS really goofed with the lack of Tutorials and such teaching folks how to power off the computer"

No, MS goofed in needing tutorials to power off the computer in the first place. Any time you need to tutorials to teach your existing users how to perform basic tasks, you have a failed UI.

Anyone claiming that Windows 8's problems are marketing, is in deep, deep denial. Automakers don't randomly change basic car controls from one year's model to the next. Neither should computer makers. If you have a true breakthrough like a 100% reliable self driving car, then yes, sure the controls can be totally redesigned. Otherwise, no. Windows 8 isn't some AI equipped PC, so changing the basic UI was a grave mistake.

Please focus on the desktop. They need to write some these essential programs for desktop and let users choose between a desktop version and a (basic) metro version. If you bring some enhancements to the desktop and make Metro optional to install I promise there will be nothing but praise for Microsoft. The desktop is essentially Microsoft's professional platform. Encourage it. A lot of people use Microsoft for their workstations and use high functioning programs. I could see using something like a NetFlix Metro app. But there needs to some essential operating system utilities used for the desktop and written for desktop only. You know what program is a great example of something that is essential for the desktop. The Calculator. The desktop version is still included in Windows 8.1. That is what I want. Could I get the Metro version at anytime? Sure, but the desktop version fits my needs and has more utility. If Microsoft simply pass off Metro apps as desktop ones, instead of writing a desktop version, Microsoft will be disappointed again.

Virtually all business users use Windows. Not just enterprise, but small biz, too. I have dozens of small biz clients and I can assure anyone who asks that they aren't interested in Metro-type apps.

My clients are doctors, mortgage brokers, CPAs, general contractors, attorneys, bankers, etc. They all run complicated vertical applications, many have dual screens (some have three and four), and many windows open.

The last effing thing that want or need is Microsoft's eye-candy vis-a-vis Metro UI and it's productivity-robbing prettiness. I'm in the business world, supporting real, everyday business users. I have a pretty damn good idea what they want and need.

Microsoft's critical error here, among a laundry list of Win8 sins, was to neglect the business space.

Here is what I think. I believe that the start menu will come before Threshold. I think its easy enough for them to do this and to make the people who don't like Windows the way it is they have to make them happy. By putting in the start menu maybe by 8.1.1/8.2 (the next update) they may do this. Then they can broaden that with Windows 9.

Paul do you know if Threshold/Windows 9 will be free or are they going to charge for it? I think if they charge for it some people are going to be upset, unless its a low cost. People who bought Windows 8 machines and didn't like the OS will likely be put off if they don't give it away for free or for at least a very low cost for people who have Windows 8/8.1.

Only 25 million PCs running Windows 8/8.1? That's not a disaster, it makes sense if you take into consideration that enterprise and consumers with more traditional (non-touch) hardware aren't likely to upgrade their exisiting hardware. I'd guess that most of the PCs running Windows 8/8.1 today are touch-enabled devices that shipped with it.

It's kind of a déjà-vu situation, with Windows 7 soon to be playing the part of XP and Windows 8 the reincarnation of Vista. But if Windows 9 will really turn out to be the next Windows 7 is highly questionable.

They have a problem with Windows because normal people have never really bought Windows. Retail Windows has been for the tech savvy and IT pros. Most normal people tended to think of Windows as something they get free with a PC that makes it work. Over Christmas I was in a large computer store in the UK and normal people were buying tablets even sales in British supermarkets are selling their own branded 7inch tablets. The cycle of automatically upgrading your PC every 3 years is nearer 6 years now and that automatic upgrade is drifting towards a tablet people can pop into a bag for all day use. So far the Microsoft tablets are far too expensive when people compare devices in the store and they really don't care if they run Windows or not. Windows is not an issue when people are choosing devices. If anything the Windows name is a problem.

In the same store there was a big Surface display and salesmen had to explain that you couldn't install iTunes on the Surface, that Chrome wasn't available, and only could get stuff from the Windows Store.

If Windows has brand value it is as a value brand. Competing with cheap Android devices not premium priced devices. Windows lovers will hate this but the name 'Windows' does not sell devices. it has no traction there.

Windows desktop in the enterprise is still there. Many desktop client applications are connecting to Windows servers and running everything from the smallest business to significant enterprises. For the consumer Windows has to go the route of the Lumia 520. Cheap on 7inch devices, cheap 10inch devices, that consumers buy online or in store instead of Android tablets. The ipad is a fashion item. Fashions do change and arguably Apple has run out of steam a little in the last year.

I run Windows 8.1 purely as a great desktop OS. I rarely run a Metro app and it's usually xbox music or Netflix. This hybrid doesn't work for about a billion of the Windows PCs in the real world. I would personally ditch the metro interface for PCs and just allow metro apps to run in Windows like desktop apps. People can put them into full screen and use touch if they want but leave it as a desktop OS. Have a separate mobile OS for Windowsphone and Windows Tablets.

And as for your last point, that's precisely what Apple did and what Microsoft (et al.) have insisted is so completely wrong. It's going to be very tough for them to come to the conclusion it's a better idea.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More